MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2337430961 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.588.588

Assessment of Risk of Thromboprophylaxis Failure in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer (Artic Study)

2014· article· en· W2337430961 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martha Louzada, Michael J. Kovacs, Fatimah Al‐Ani, Alejandro Lazo‐Langner, Lenicio Siqueira

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismCancerLow molecular weight heparinRetrospective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)Deep veinThrombosisSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains the major cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Three randomized placebo controlled trials have demonstrated the superiority low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and 1 heparinoid in the prevention of VTE in hospitalized medical patients with a 50% absolute risk reduction in VTE compared to placebo, but an overall failure rate of 5%. Current guidelines suggest that hospitalized cancer patients receive venous thromboprophylaxis with LMWH, if their hospital stay is longer than 3 days. In this study we sought to evaluate the incidence of VTE in hospitalized patients with cancer receiving VTE prophylaxis with subcutaneous 5000 units of dalteparin daily during the admission period. Methods: This is a single centre retrospective cohort study (London, Canada). We collected data from adult patients with active cancer admitted for acute medical reasons who received VTE prophylaxis with LMWH during their hospital stay. We considered failure of prophylaxis if objective diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis occurred: a) during hospitalization; b) within 1 month or 3 months of most recent discharge from hospital. We included patients 18 years old or older; with any type of active cancer (except basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin) admitted for at least 3 days for treatment of an acute medical reason directly associated to their cancer or not. We did not include patients admitted at the intensive care unit. We need 713 patients to demonstrate a 5 to 7.5% failure rate in VTE prophylaxis (MCID 2.5%) in hospitalized patients with cancer with a 0.025 one-sided alpha and 80% power. Results: Between January 2011 and December 2013 our hospital registered 4262 admissions of patients with active malignancy for treatment of an acute medical illness. 875 patients (total 1132 admissions) fulfilled our eligibility criteria. 434 were males (49.5%), mean age 64.3 (SD= 13.5). There were 180 (20%) hematological and 695 (80%) solid malignancies. The most frequent tumor sites were genitourinary (n=170), lung (n=158), colorectal (n=128) and others (n= 239). 559 (70%) patients with solid tumors had stage III or IV. Reason for admission was failure to thrive (n=232); fever/ infection (n= 202); need for cancer treatment (n= 154); pain control (n=126); respiratory distress (n=108) or CNS symptoms (n=53). Mean hospitalization days were 14.7 (±12). 491 (56%) patients had a single admission. VTE occurred in 70 of 875 patients (8.0%). The incidence of VTE was most frequent during the hospitalization period [34 of 70 patients (48.0%)] compared to 1 month [14 (20.0%)] or 3 months [22 (31.5%)] following the most recent hospitalization. Univariate analysis suggested that being male (OR= 1.69; 95%CI: 1.03 – 2.78; p=0.039); age 65 or older (OR=1.39; 95%CI: 0.4 -1.8; p=0.052); admission due to respiratory distress (OR=2.61; 95%CI: 0.9 – 6.8; p=0.052) or failure to thrive (OR=2.52; 95%CI: 1.1 – 5.9; p=0.036) were significantly associated with VTE risk. Having pancreas or colorectal cancer approached significance (Table). Total bleeding rate was 18 of 875 (2%) with 5 major bleeding events. 175 (20%) patients died during the study period: 125 (75%) due to malignancy progression. Conclusion: Hospitalized patients with active cancer are at high risk for VTE prophylaxis failure (8%). It appears that reason of admission, age and male sex are significant risk factors of VTE prophylaxis failure. Having colorectal or pancreatic cancer may also pose a risk for VTE. New VTE prophylactic strategies for this population should be investigated in future prospective studies. Table. Univariate analysis to assess potential risk factors for LMWH prophylaxis failure in hospitalized patients with cancer Risk Factors Odds Ratio (95% CI) p-value Male 0.95 (0.6 -1.5) 0.808 Age ≥65 1.39 (0.4 -1.8) 0.052 Stage I - II Stage III - IV 1.03 (0.4 -2.5)1.27 (0.7 -2.4) 0.9090.478 Primary tumor site* Lung Colorectal Breast Pancreas Others 1.79 (0.8 - 7.4)2.67(0.9 - 4.7)1.63 (0.9 -10.7)3.11 (0.6 - 3.8)1.33 (0.9 - 5.6) 0.1690.0600.3630.0730.452 Reason for admission^ Fever CNS symptoms Respiratory distress Pain Failure to thrive 1.32 (0.5 - 3.4)1.703 (0.5 - 6.0)2.61 (0.9 - 6.8)1.79 (0.7 - 4.8)2.52 (1.1 - 5.9) 0.5720.4110.0520.2480.036 Number of admissions ** <4 ≥ 4 1.21 (0.7 - 2.0)1.46 (0.4 -5.0) 0.4620.553 Reference: *hematological; ^anticancer treatment ** single admission Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→